Asia Chemical
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ACC) and Four Pillars Enterprises Company, Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as FPE) are now involving in a patent dispute with Globe
Industries Corporation(hereinafter referred to
as GIC) for ROC Patent Application No. 54625 (hereinafter referred to as Patent) entitled
¡§Non-Knifing Plastic Adhesive Tape¡¨, filed on January 21, 1971, allowed and published
on December 1, 1971 and expired on January 21, 1981.

Historical
Background:

It is believed to
be safe to consider that this application is the most famous case hardly unknown to any
national here who even only habitually reads headlines of economic news. Its
administrative dispute ran from 1971 to 1990 and its decided judicial litigation involving
in about NT$400,000,000 began from 1972 and still continues now.

Original Primary Disclosure in January 21, 1971 Specification not more than two pages in
totality is directed to an invention claiming a method for manufacturing an adhesive
plastic tape without any drawing. As contemplated, such adhesive plastic tape can be
easily torn simply by the user¡¥s finger to provide a non-deformed torn tape with a flush
or straight torn end in order to reduce the work cost and be labor-effective. The
single claim reads ¡§a method of embossing kinds of specially designed patterns on a
surface of an adhesive plastic tape in order to reduce the contact area between an
adhesive and a plastic surface of said adhesive plastic tape.¡¨ This application
and the claim were subject to six times in more than 3 years amendments including being
converted into one for a utility model, revising the specification, incorporating into the
specification a drawing and changing and/or adding claims even having been allowed for
about three years. The final version of the claim being single again is as follows:
¡§a packaging adhesive plastic tape having a plastic tape layer and an adhesive layer in
which the plastic tape layer has a flat surface applying thereon said adhesive layer and
an opposite surface fully breadthwise embossed with parallel straight or dotted lines or a
pattern in a manner that a protruded portion is thicker and has a stronger anti-tearing
strength and a recessed portion is thinner and has a weaker anti-bearing strength such
that in use, by the user¡¥s finger, said adhesive plastic tape is tearable to provide a
flush torn end along a recessed weakened portion without a knife.¡¨

It is to be noticed from what the above has shown that the applicant proceeded a
conversion action similar to a refiling procedure, that according to the then-applicable
Patent Law, subject matters before and after conversion should not be different and a
conversion action shall be exercised when the applicant regards its application involves
in a different creation level and desires to secure the original filing date of the parent
application, that this country did and does not have a CIP (Continuation-In-Part)
application system as in the US, and that this case was and still is considered to have an
effective filing date of January 21, 1971.

After decided by the Supreme Court awarding unprecedented huge damages to GIC in late
1996, ACC contacted this firm and questioned ¡§do you believe there is any relief measure
by which we can find our justice since Patent does really not qualify as a creation?¡¨
In response thereto, this firm uttered ¡§if Patent does not qualify as a creation, we
foresee a 99% success rate to lift the liability of bearing the huge damages.¡¨ The
history of the new struggle on Patent thus ran from that time.

At first, by conducting inter alia a global
validity search, we carefully looked into whether Patent is valid? After a quite
thorough evaluation, it appears to us Patent is invalid and we accordingly advised the
client ¡§we have a near 100% confidence that the Patent will be invalidated.¡¨ In
deploying armors we had at hand and drawing up the attacking strategies, we initiated 4
invalidating proceedings in late 1996 and early 1997 against Patent, including a first one
directed to kinds of formality defects Patent had assumed and the rest three ones
respectively directed to violations of novelty, non-obviousness and novelty and/or
non-obviousness and respectively backed up by three groups of unified brand new and/or old
evidences. As contemplated, since each invalidation proceedings could independently
crash Patent, Patent could in no way survive over this wave of attacks, which would in
turn make obsolete the decision of the Supreme Court awarding damages through a retrial
proceedings.

It is to be noticed that Patent had been subjected to and survived over various opposition
proceedings and two invalidation proceedings (hereinafter referred to as Former
Proceedings) nearly 30 years ago. The evidences used in the four invalidation
proceedings, nevertheless, are either de facto
totally different from those of Former Proceedings or de jure different therefrom. This is because
even if evidences A and B have been used in a former proceedings, evidences A, B and C can
still be legally used in a latter proceedings in that how evidences A and/or B cooperates
with C to present the evidence should be different from that presented by evidences A and
B in the former proceedings. The situation remains the same even if the latter
proceedings also uses only evidences A and B but presents them in a legally different way.
This is why Article 72(2) of ROC Patent Law stipulates that ¡§examined opposition or
invalidation proceedings in the preceding paragraph having been irrevocably dismissed, no
one shall initiate further invalidation proceedings by same fact and same evidence.¡¨
Specifically, this article shall apply only when not only the same evidence(s) are used
but the same fact(s) are involved in. As an example, when evidences A and B are
cooperated with each other in a first aspect in the former proceedings to present the
attacking arguments, one can legally use same evidences unified in a latter proceedings in
a second aspect legally different from the first aspect, since although evidences are the
same, facts are different. The problem thus resides in that how to determine that
the second aspect is legally different from the first aspect? It is believed that
no one can give a simple and accurate answer to this problem.

Just like what is happened to the patentable requirement of non-obviousness, facing such indefinite legal concept, the human being feels
exhausting, exhausted, challenging, stinging, hopeless, desperate and wretched, and begins
to know humble, limited and polite. There has been an outstanding well-armed legal
scholar in this country provocatively raises that there is no indefinite legal concept in
the world since it is readily clear what is meant by that indefinite legal concept.
What is really indefinite is how to decide whether there is a case, which should be
governed by the indefinite legal concept. This should be attributed to shortage of
hardworking attempts, limitation of abilities and/or poverty in researches and
developments but is irrelevant to the fact that there is an indefinite legal concept on
earth. It is thus believed that if the underlying reasons and/or arguments
respectively in first and second aspects should be considered different in view of one¡¦s
legal feelings, the first aspect is legally different from the second aspect. The
question ¡§what is meant by ¡¥different in view of one¡¦s legal feelings¡¦¡¨ comes
again. It would be controversial whether such explanation as an attempt to interpret
the doubt merely complicates the matter? This is because this explanation introduces
therein two variables or ¡¥indefinite¡¦ terms to be defined.

Interestingly, in Former Proceedings, a great many of local lawyers or firms of great or
certain fame were involved therein, trying to rescue the situation, but failed.
Remorsefully by FPE and regretfully to some extent by ACC presently, FPE did consider to
but finally not join in this wave of attacks and initiated by itself an independent
invalidation proceedings in late 1996 before it received a final decision from the Supreme
Court. This was because FPE was wondering whether this firm, being so young (then
about 4 years old) could assume this heavy and hardly possible mission. It is to be
noticed that Article 72(3) of ROC Patent Law, which stipulates that ¡§an interested party
having a recoverable legal interest with cancellation of a patent right may initiate
invalidation proceedings after expiration or natural extinction of the patent right,¡¨
was enacted into law in March 1994 according to Great Judge Conference Explanation No.
213, which was striven to be rendered by the Great Judge Conference by several companies
including FPE and ACC and headed by FPE in Former Proceedings. It was said that the
independent invalidation proceedings plainly uses all evidences in Former Proceedings
without being differently unified or grouped together from a different legal aspect.
If this were the case, the independent invalidation proceedings will have an uphill battle
before the clause of ¡¥same fact and same evidence¡¦ in above-mentioned Article 72(2) of
the Patent Law.

Just before and after the lunar new year¡¦s week holidays, NBS (National Bureau of
Standards) (former agency of IPO, Intellectual Property Office) in very early 1998 issued
notifications respectively rejecting to entertain the 5 newly initiated invalidation
proceedings by alleging that ACC and FPE failed to satisfy the requirement of ¡¥having a
recoverable legal interest with cancellation¡¦ of Patent as set forth in Article 72(3) of
the Patent Law in that the relevant judicial criminal offence and civil infringement
decisions ACC and FPE had received had been irrevocably decided by the Supreme Court so
that there will be no way for ACC and/or FPE to anticipate any ¡¥recoverable legal
interest.¡¦ Overwhelmingly shocked by this creative legal theorem, ACC and FPE
followed the normal procedures to appeal the case to the Ministry of Economic Affairs
(MOEA). After MOEA dismissing the 4 invalidating proceedings initiated by ACC, the
Executive Yuan dismissing the re-appeal proceedings again with substantially the same
reasons alleged by NBS or IPO and some added similar reasons both to be carefully
discussed hereinafter. Presently, these 4 cases are pending before the
Administrative Court being now flooded with thousands of appeal cases respectively
originating from thousands of former member staffs of Chung San Science Research Institute
of Ministry of National Defense, protesting the compulsory retirement/dismissal program.
Being defeated in IPO, MOEA and Executive Yuan, not only this firm is somewhat
desperate, but it seems ACC loses some confidence on this firm. In order to cope
with this situation, ACC has caused many other experts including retired great judge from
the Great Judge Conference, retired judges from General Court and Administrative Court and
highly recommended senior attorneys-at-law to take their parts in the Administrative Court
proceedings.

Nevertheless, MOEA remanded the independent invalidation proceedings initiated by FPE to
be reviewed by NBS and ruled in its decision that the notification rendered by NBS is
questionable in view of the fact that the independent invalidation proceedings was
initiated in November 1996 which is earlier than August 1997 when FPE received the
decision decided by the Supreme Court on the civil infringement. In March, 1999, IPO
issued an Office Action rejecting the independent invalidation proceedings again on the
basis that although the previous notification might be defective by failing to recognize
that the independent invalidation proceedings was initiated before the Supreme Court
rendered its decision, the result/situation would not have been changed since effective
from the date on which FPE received the Supreme Court decision in August, 1997 irrevocably
confirming the infringement liabilities FPE should assume, FPE still had no stand
thereafter to satisfy the requirement of ¡¥having a recoverable legal interest with
cancellation¡¦ of Patent as stipulated in Article 72(3) of the Patent Law. After
appealing the case to MOEA by FPE, MOEA in July, 1999 made a decision reversing the Action
IPO had made on the bases that upon initiating the independent invalidation proceedings,
FPE¡¦s civil litigation was still pending before the Supreme Court so that FPE does exist
a relief interest for rectifying the original action through invalidation, which should
not be adversely affected ¡¥because there proceeded the civil litigation¡¦ (which cannot
be precisely understood), and that even civil or criminal judgements have become
irrevocable during the invalidation proceedings, a retrial proceedings can, but not might,
be legally instituted according to Article 496(1)(11) of Code of Civil Proceedings which
stipulates that ¡¥civil or criminal or other decisions or administrative action on which
a judgement is based has been changed by a later irrevocable judgement or administrative
action¡¦ if the independent invalidation proceedings is tenable, which is irrelevant to
the fact IPO has asserted that the Supreme Court being the third instance is a legal
instance in which any party cannot submit any new fact and new evidence. As a
result, the action IPO has rendered is improper and an appropriate action anew rendered is
called for.

It can be known that if the 4 invalidating proceedings initiated by ACC were jointly
submitted by FPE, both ACC and FPE should now in a better position since so far as ACC is
concerned, the 4 invalidating proceedings were initiated thereby after civil and/or
criminal litigations had been irrevocably decided whereas so far as FPE is concerned, they
were initiated before it received the Supreme Court decision irrevocably deciding the
relevant civil infringement. Although we still are worryingly confident in
succeeding the 4 invalidating proceedings in such extremely worse situation, it might
deserve to spend a little while to analyze why FPE did not finally jointly submit the 4
invalidating proceedings as originally contemplated. It appears to us there were
the following reasons:

1) FPE, advised by
the attorney-at-law engaging in the successful explanation petition of the above-mentioned
Great Judge Conference that any attempt to relieve the situation it suffers or will suffer
is a mission impossible, strongly wondered how an invalidating proceedings should be
initiated?

2) FPE desired to
extremely deliberately construct the contents of briefs of the invalidating proceedings
through repetitive discussions in meetings summoning together past experienced
participants relating to Patent. As a result, it presented a big problem how to
compromise among opinions originating from sound experts coming from various fields;

3) Cherishing the
spectacular past records it made or headed to make, including bringing forward Great Judge
Conference Explanation No. 213 and Article 72 (3) of Patent Law, it appeared that FPE did
not well adapt itself to be co-named in the 4 invalidating proceedings headed by ACC;

4) Attributing to
the above and other reasons, the outcome was FPE submitted the independent invalidating
proceedings at a later date and attempted to submit another invalidating proceedings
detailedly discussing and deducing how and why each official authority relating to Patent
had erred in rendering its respective action. Such another invalidating proceedings,
however, never comes to this world.

As advised by Confucius that one can impute his failure to destiny if he has done all
possible, it appears to us that no one is blamable and nothing is regretful.

Analyses and Discussions:

Knowing the above-mentioned interesting background, we would like to carefully discuss now
the propriety of opinions shown in action and/or decision of administrative authorities
including IPO, MOEA and Executive Yuan on Article 72(3) of ROC Patent Law hereinafter.

While listing respectively all reasons alleged by administrative authorities to dismiss
the 4 invalidating proceedings (hereinafter referred to as Proceedings) at the present
stage, we would like to correspondingly propose immediately thereafter what we argue and
think as follows:

1) Upon initiating
Proceedings, the civil and criminal decisions had been respectively irrevocably rendered
by the Supreme Court and Taiwan High Court and the criminal decision had been executed so
that all legal interests ACC has have been irrevocably decided and no more recoverable.
Accordingly, Proceedings cannot meet with the requirements of Article 72(3) of the
Patent Law and shall not be entertained;

Our
arguments directed thereagainst are briefly quoted in the following:

A. The outcome of a single civil or
criminal litigation does not necessarily present the historical reality of an event but
involves in whether proofs have been duly deposed, whether attack and/or defense have been
skillfully exercised and/or whether the litigation proceedings have been properly
proceeded. The event can be repetitively argued through different subject matters of
court action (a term in the continental law, which corresponds to causes of action in the
oceanic law). Specifically, if a party loses in a civil or criminal litigation
directed to the attack on and/or defense of a specific subject matter of court action (or
cause of action), the party can legally initiate another civil or criminal litigation
directed to the attack on and/or defense of another specific subject matter of court
action (or cause of action);

B. It is true that after a particular civil
or criminal litigation has been decided by the Supreme Court, there ensues the
irrevocability on that particular civil or criminal litigation. Accordingly,
although there might be an irreversibility of the court decision on that particular civil
or criminal litigation, it never represents there already is an irretraceability on the
historical reality of the event;

C. Thus, even there exists an irrevocable
decision for a particular civil or criminal litigation on a specific subject matter
arguing the event, any one or any entity have no stand to conclude thereby that any body
has been no legal interest with the event.

2) If Proceedings should be
entertained as asserted by ACC incapable of proving there exists a recoverable legal
interest, so far as all patent rights after their expirations or natural extinctions are
concerned, the legal effect formed before their expiration or extinction will never become
stable. Accordingly, it is apparent that ACC claiming to have a recoverable legal
interest through suffering from the irrevocable disadvantageous civil or criminal decision
has confused the premise with the consequence or the cause with the result;

Our
arguments directed thereagainst are briefly quoted in the following:

A. ACC never doubts but respects the
irrevocability of decisions (hereinafter referred to as Decisions) on original civil or
criminal litigations. Nevertheless, it is equally possible or true for ACC to
institute another civil or criminal litigations through another subject matter of court
action to obtain irrevocable favorable decisions thereon. Legal effects of decisions
on original or another civil or criminal litigations can simultaneously coexist and be
respectively irrevocable where the latter ones might cause the former ones to be
unenforceable;

B. The fact that Patent has ever existed is
the basis or the premise of Decisions and is petitioned to be investigated by Proceedings.
In contrast, Decisions are the consequence of the fact that Patent has ever existed
since the court here only deals with whether or not there is an infringement but is always
blind as to whether the patent in concern is valid. So far as Patent and Decisions
are concerned, it should be clear which one is the premise or cause and which one is the
consequence or result. It should also be clear it is ACC or the administrative
authority who or which has confused the premise or cause with the consequence or result.

3) There already exists
irrevocability on Decisions. ACC has no position to claim it has a recoverable legal
interest on invalidating Patent simply because it may still institute a retrial
proceedings on Decisions, in order that the irrevocability of decision will not become
nonsense;

Our
arguments directed thereagainst are briefly quoted in the following:

A. It should be easily discernible to
differentiate the recoverable legal interest of a specific subject matter of court action
from the recoverable legal interest of the event since as mentioned hereinbefore, the same
legal event can be lawfully respectively disputed from different subject matters of court
action simultaneously or at different times;

B. It is equally correct to believe that
Decisions already are irrevocable and that it still exists with ACC a recoverable legal
interest with respect to the event since without that event, ACC need not be decided to be
liable for damages awarded by the court so that ACC must exist a recoverable legal
interest on the event since according to technique presently available, it is still
impossible for the human being to root an event out of the history.

4) According to ACC, if
Proceedings are entertained, it is ¡¥possible¡¦ that Patent will be invalidated by which
it is again ¡¥possible¡¦ to institute the retrial proceedings for Decisions by which it
is in turn ¡¥possible¡¦ to exclude the legal effect caused by the irrevocable Decisions¡K.
Thus, what ACC has sought after merely relates to a series of ¡¥possible¡¦;

Our
arguments directed thereagainst are briefly quoted in the following:

A. Each of all ¡¥possible¡¦ incidents referred
to in the above relates to a legal interest since it has been repetitively made clear by
precedents whether there exists a legal interest shall be formally judged;

B. To determine whether Proceedings shall
be entertained only requires the existence of the first ¡¥possible.¡¦ Even though
administrative authorities have unfoundedly superimposed on Proceedings kinds of ¡¥possible,¡¦
the fact that there exists for ACC a legal interest can in no way be scrubbed off;

C. It would seem that the administrative
authority purposively intend to wreck this case in that it is readily apparent that if the
first ¡¥possible¡¦ is affirmed, it is necessitated that all the remaining ¡¥possible¡¦
become definite so that there only is a ¡¥possible¡¦ with no else.

5) The sentence that ¡¥there
exists a recoverable legal interest through cancellation of [said] action¡¦ as mentioned
in Great Judge Conference Explanation No. 213 shall not be construed to include the
situation that there exists a ¡¥possibility¡¦ of instituting a retrial proceedings after
the civil and criminal patent infringement litigations have been irrevocably decided;

Our
arguments directed thereagainst are briefly quoted in the following:

A. Great Judge Conference Explanation No. 213
never expresses its inapplicability to the situation that there exists a ¡¥possibility¡¦
of instituting a retrial proceedings after the civil and criminal patent infringement
litigations have been irrevocably decided. Even if we retreat to believe that the
¡¥recoverable legal interest¡¦ does not include the ¡¥possibility¡¦ of instituting a
retrial proceedings, we cannot agree that the recoverable legal interest does not include
the right for ACC to argue against the event from a different subject matter of court
action;

B. On the contrary, according to ¡¥statutorily
reserved principle¡¦ which means whenever the ruling power desires to deprive some kind
of right from a person, the government must have a statutory basis, without citing any
kind of statutory basis, it is arbitrarily unfounded for the administrative authority to
murmur or to cry to that effect;

C. Specifically, if Patent is invalidated, we can
rest assured that ACC will succeed in the retrial proceedings by which we can rest assured
again that all liabilities presently put on ACC can all be legally removed.

6) So far as the present legal
status is concerned, the relevant civil and criminal litigations have been irrevocably
decided and the administrative action on which judicial judgements are based has not been
changed so that ACC cannot presently find reason for a retrial proceedings. Since
ACC cannot locate an existent retrial reason, it is extremely doubtful that ACC owns a
legal recoverable interest.

Our
arguments directed thereagainst are briefly quoted in the following:

A. The word ¡¥recoverable¡¦ in the relevant
clause of Article 72(3) of the Patent Law is an adjective and exactly means ¡¥it is
possible to recover.¡¦ Accordingly, Article 72(3) of the Patent Law only requires
there is a possibility to recover ones¡¦ legal interest other than a guarantee that one
can recover his legal interest. This is because the human being is so weak, fragile
and tiny and must suffer during his life from kinds of faults and misfortunes. It is
thus impossible for any one on earth to guarantee in the future any specific happening
which is to be decided by others and will occur only in the future;

B. Proceedings are initiated to seek
changed the result of the administrative action allowing Patent so that it would be
rootedly ridiculous for the administrative authority to reject entertainment of
Proceedings by alleging that the administrative action on which judicial judgements are
based has not been changed, since if the administrative action has been changed, how it
will become possible to have Proceedings initiated?

C. Specifically, whether ACC has a recoverable
legal interest on Proceedings shall be judged on whether ACC will gain a legal interest if
ACC succeeds in Proceedings that has been repetitively clearly shown by precedents ruling
¡¥whether it is favorable [to the appellant] shall be formally judged at the time the
action was taken. Specifically, it is favorable [to the appellant] if the action
appears to be favorable at the time it was taken. An action is not to be determined
after the court has rendered its decision to be favorable or unfavorable.¡¦

7)
According to the retrial provisions in Code of Civil Proceedings, a party having claimed
or known without claiming the retrial reason or cause before the relevant litigation has
been irrevocably decided is ineligible to institute a retrial proceedings. In Former
Proceedings having been irrevocably decided by the Administrative Court, ACC had argued
Patent cannot meet with requirements of patentabilities. If Patent has other
violations in law, ACC should so argue before Former Proceedings were irrevocably decided.
ACC shall not cook up the pretext that there is a possibility of instituting the
retrial proceedings for trying to meet with the requirement of ¡¥recoverable legal
interest¡¦ after the relevant litigation has been unfavorably decided, and trying to
gloss over the unfavorable litigation result through its failure in proper attack and/or
defense by initiation of Proceedings;Our arguments directed thereagainst are briefly
quoted in the following:

A. According to Code of Civil Proceedings, even a
party knew a retrial reason that Patent is invalid before the relevant litigation has been
irrevocably decided, it still is eligible to institute the retrial proceedings if it could
not then submit what he knew as a legal retrial reason. Specifically, although it
strongly believes Patent is invalid, it could not submit its belief as a legal retrial
reason. It is only until the time when it can show to the court¡¦s belief that
Patent is invalid, can it use its belief before the court for the retrial proceedings;

B. It is true that in Former Proceedings,
ACC has argued Patent is invalid, which, however, is irrelevant to the lawfulness of
Proceedings in that evidences and/or facts used in Proceedings and Former Proceedings are
different. Accordingly, Proceedings can freely pass the scrutiny of Article 72(2) of
the Patent Law. When Proceedings can meet with the requirements of Article 72(2) of
the Patent Law, it is naturally baseless for the administrative authority to utter any
more what kind of fact has been argued in the past;

C. Most importantly, according to the Patent Law,
evidences and/or facts which are not submitted upon the initiation of an opposition or
invalidation proceedings or within one month from the date of such initiation shall not be
considered or evaluated in the proceedings. If the administrative authority obeys
the law by which the administrative authority is assumed to abide without failure, how the
administrative authority can divert ACC from following the law and, nevertheless, require
ACC argue other violations in law by Patent in Former Proceedings before irrevocably
decided since it is illegal for ACC to argue violations of law by Patent other than those
extractable from evidences and facts initially submitted;

D. Even ACC intentionally delays the initiation
of Proceedings until the patent infringement litigation was irrevocably decided, it is
irrelevant to cook up a pretext for establishing a possibility of instituting a retrial
proceedings for meeting with requirements of recoverable legal interest. This is
because litigation and administrative relief rights conferred by the Constitution impart
freedom to ACC to decide when and/or whether Proceedings and/or retrial proceedings should
be invoked. It is terribly fine for ACC to decide the institution of Proceedings
only after ACC found the Supreme Court, contrary to its anticipation or assertion,
unexpectedly ruled against its favor;

E. The time when Proceedings should be
initiated is totally free up to ACC. Thus, the fact that Proceedings were not
initiated until the patent infringement litigation had been irrevocably decided has
nothing to do with glossing over the unfavorable litigation result. Even if ACC
desired to obviate the necessity of being liable for damages awarded by the court through
its improper and insufficient attack and/or defense in the patent infringement litigation
by initiation of Proceedings, it is beyond any kind of illegality.

8) If no deadline or time is
set for the initiation of an invalidation proceedings after expiration or extinction of
the patent right, a party receiving an unfavorable decision on the civil and/or criminal
litigations can still institute ¡¥at any time¡¦ the invalidation proceedings after
expiration or extinction of the patent right, which will not only result in a serious harm
so far as the maintenance of the legal order is concerned, but is easily exploited by the
one who is suffering from an unfavorable decision to present a tool for interfering with
or obstructing the effects an irrevocable decision should have;

Our
arguments directed thereagainst are briefly quoted in the following:

A. As will become
apparent from the above-mentioned ¡¥statutory reserved principle,¡¦ any limitation on
rights of the national must be statutorily provided. Since there is no statutory
deadline or time for initiation of the invalidation proceedings, any interested party
including the one having received an unfavorable decision on the civil and/or criminal
litigations can certainly ¡¥at any time¡¦ institute the invalidation proceedings after
expiration or extinction of the patent right;

B. Any action taken
according to the justice or law will not in any way harm the legal order. On the
contrary, it is such unlimited statutory appeal system which effectively drains off kinds
of social discontents including anger, complaint, disdain, grievance, grudge, grumble,
hate, indignation, ire, rage, resentment, wrath against the society and/or the government.
Should there exist no such statutory appeal system, the society and/or the
government will get collapsed or crumbled relatively easily;

C. Even the saint will
sometime do wrong, not to mention the judge in the court. If an irrevocable decision
involves in an unjust factor, the party who receive the unfavorable decision surely has
rights to argue against that decision according to the statutory provisions regardless of
whether it is irrevocable;

9) ACC has litigated with GIC
for more than 20 years and should have exhausted possibilities and its abilities to
nullify Patent. Accordingly, even ACC¡¦s assertions are viable, what the fact shows
is contrary to ACC¡¦s declaration that ACC found reasons and evidences capable of
invalidating Patent after expiration of Patent.

Our
arguments directed thereagainst are briefly quoted in the following:

A. The saying ¡¥truth is uneasy to find¡¦
is best interpreted by the present case. It appears that the present case only
involves in an easy legal problem, as outlined above, having called for so much struggling
but has not been comfortably accepted by the administrative authority. How can the
administrative authority determine ACC had exhausted possibilities and its abilities for
nullifying Patent simply because ACC had disputed with GIC for more than 20 years?

B. It would appear that the administrative
authority has somewhat moved its position to concede to state that ACC¡¦s assertions
might be viable. It is, however, never realizable why it is impossible for ACC to be
able to find reasons and evidences capable of invalidating Patent after its expiration?
As a simple exemplary reason, it was not possible until 1996, can ACC locate a
competent firm, such as Deep & Far being then only of 4 years old, of enough mettle to
strive against the present case. It is equally hardly understandable by what kinds
of reasons and evidences, the administrative authority takes the fact as contrary to ACC¡¦s
faithful and honest declaration;

C. Since its stipulation, Article 72(3) of
the Patent Law finds no application. If it still cannot be applied to Patent, it
would appear that this article merely serves a function of decoration.

Conclusion:

Although it is extremely hard to tell how the present will evolve since it is now still
pending before the Administrative Court, it is hardly possible for this firm to allow the
present case to be lost even after all other elected participants have given up to
struggle with the case since it is our indisputable belief that the 4 invalidating
proceedings can certainly pass the scrutiny of Article 72(3) of ROC Patent Law.
Although it appears that nothing is impossible under the sun, we will endeavor after the
justice before the Patent Law to look after the interested party as the law is originally
enacted to be.

We can accept we are defeated because what we have presented in briefs in Proceedings is
unfounded or unconvincing after substantive examinations on Proceedings.
Nevertheless, it is impossible for us to take that Proceedings cannot pass the scrutiny of
Article 72(3) of ROC Patent Law. We cannot profess we must be right. Also, we
never surrender to evil force. If what we think and insist in is in agreement with
what the general public would like to take and believe, we will be evil if we could not
succeed in making Proceedings into precedents properly applying Article 72(3) of the
Patent Law.

Deep & Far Newsletter is intended to be informative and of some kind of enlightenment.
Unless having been fully developed, any views or opinions, expressed or implied, are unnecessarily
those of Deep & Far, or its attorneys or clients.